G.R. No.

168716, April 16, 2009 If a seafarer due to no fault of his own, suffers injury as a result of an accident while serving on board or

HFS PHILIPPINES INC v. PILAR while traveling to or from the vessel on the companys business or due to marine peril, and as a result his

CORONA J: ability to work is permanently reduced, totally or partially, the Company shall pay him a disability
TOPIC: SOCIAL JUSTICE compensation xxx
DOCTRINE: That those who have less in life should have more in the law

7. Petitioners, on the other hand, asserted that in the absence of proof his depression was caused by
FACTS: an accident, respondent was not entitled to disability and medical benefits under Article 12 of the
CBA. Instead, he was only entitled to the 120-day sick pay provided under Article 10 of the CBA which
1. Ronaldo R. Pilar was engaged by petitioners IUM Shipmanagement AS and its Philippine provides:
manning agent, HFS Philippines, Inc. (HFS), as an electrician of the Norwegian vessel M/V Hual
Triumph for the duration of 9 months, a pay of $981 per month, vacation leave of 8 days per During the period of employment and at the time of signing off, the officer shall submit to a medical
month examination when requested by the company or its representative, at the company's expense. Xxx If the officer is
sick or injured at the termination of the service period, he has the same entitlement for a maximum period of one

2. Four months after he boarded respondent complained of loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of signing off. xxx In the event of sickness or injury necessitating
signing-off, the officer is entitled to travel to Manila at the company's expense. The officer is entitled to sick pay
and severe nervousness. Despite being given medical treatment, his condition did not
(at the same rate as basic wage) for up to 120 days after signing off, provided the sickness or the injury is verified
improve.
by written statement from an authorized physician.

3. When the vessel arrive Japan he was brought to Komatsu Hospital where he was diagnosed
8. The NCMB held that the nature of respondent's occupation significantly contributed to the deterioration of his
with depression and gastric ulcer.The attending physician declared him unfit for work and was
psychological condition. Respondents depression was therefore a compensable sickness since it arose out of his
sent back to manila on the same day employment. In view of the principle of social justice (that those who have less in life should have more in the
law), the NCMB awarded disability compensation to him
4. HFS then brought to the Medical Center Manila, respondent was placed in continuous care
after a physician confirmed his depression. 9. CA (reverse): Article 12 of the CBA applies when a seafarer suffers an injury (1) as a consequence of an accident

5. Respondent was soon after declare fit to work by the company physician but after consulting that took place on board the vessel or (2) while traveling to and from the vessel on company business or (3) due

other physicians on his own he was then declare unfit to work. to a marine peril. Since respondents illnesses were not the result of any of the said circumstances, he was not
entitled to disability compensation granted by the CBA. Nonetheless, because he proved that his illnesses
6. Respondent filed a complaint for underpayment of disability and medical benefits and for
impaired him, he is entitled to disability benefits granted by the employment contract.
moral and exemplary damages in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Claiming
that while sleeping during his rest hours on March 9, 2002, he was suddenly awakened by his
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent can be compensated on the basis of Social justice
officer who hit him on the head. He was so traumatized by the incident that thereafter, he
lost his appetite, vomited incessantly and experienced severe nervousness. He claimed to be
HELD:
entitled to disability compensation under Article 12 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) between AMOSUP and the Norwegian Shipowners Association which provides:
YES.

In this case, the company-accredited doctor opined that respondent was fit to work but
respondents own physicians declared otherwise.
We note that Section 20(B) of the employment contract states that it is the company-designated
physician who determines a seafarer's fitness to work or his degree of disability. Nonetheless, a
claimant may dispute the company-designated physician's report by seasonably consulting another
doctor. In such a case, the medical report issued by the latter shall be evaluated by the labor
tribunal and the court, based on its inherent merit

The company-designated physician declared respondent as having suffered a major depression but
was already cured and therefore fit to work. On the other hand, the independent physicians stated
that respondents major depression persisted and constituted a disability. More importantly, while
the former totally ignored the diagnosis of the Japanese doctor that respondent was also suffering
from gastric ulcer, the latter addressed this. The independent physicians thus found that
respondent was suffering from chronic gastritis and declared him unfit for work.

The bottomline is this: the certification of the company-designated physician would defeat
respondents claim while the opinion of the independent physicians would uphold such claim. In
such a situation, we adopt the findings favorable to respondent.

The law looks tenderly on the laborer. Where the evidence may be reasonably interpreted in two
divergent ways, one prejudicial and the other favorable to him, the balance must be tilted in his
favor consistent with the principle of social justice